suggest_control_citations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the suggestion generation process and return structure, but could explicitly state that it is a read-only operation with no side effects. The mention of 'suggestions' implies non-mutating behavior, but direct declaration would improve transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (WORKFLOW, Args, Returns). It is detailed but not excessively verbose. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating the suggestion context), but overall it efficiently conveys the necessary information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers workflow, parameters, and return schema adequately. However, the omission of assessmentId from the input schema is a significant gap that undermines completeness. Error handling and permissions are not mentioned, but with output schema present, return values are sufficiently documented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains controlName and controlId well, but mentions assessmentId as mandatory despite it not being in the input schema. This inconsistency reduces clarity. The description adds value by describing the optional description parameter and the workflow, but the gap regarding assessmentId is notable.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Suggest control citations for a given control name or description.' It also explains the workflow, differentiating it from sibling tools like fetch_controls by focusing on suggestions based on input. The verb 'suggest' and resource 'control citations' are specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit workflow guidance: 'When user provides a requirement, ask which assessment they want to use...' It details prerequisites (assessmentId resolution), two options (select existing or create new), and the role of each parameter. This fully informs when and how to use the tool vs alternatives like fetch_controls.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.